Narrative:

I found heavy corrosion on the avionics air inlet butterfly check valve and entered the discrepancy into the logbook and the deferral list (deferred item 1). Coworker called maintenance control for a possible MEL deferral and was advised by the tech that a deferral did not exist and the valve would have to be replaced. We then finished out the rest of our assigned paperwork for the aircraft then passed on the logbook and paperwork as well as the information about the check valve onto crew chief for him to take appropriate actions. The next day I looked up the deferred item 1 in the deferral list to see what maintenance actions were performed and saw that [crew chief] closed the discrepancy as 'upon further inspection; exhaust dust was present. No evidence of corrosion. Operations check: good. Ok for service' and released the aircraft for service. No repair or corrective action was performed. The valve has severe intergranular corrosion.I then researched my other findings deferred item 2 dents on leading edge of right horizontal stabilizer and deferred item 3 damage to cutout panel in aft cargo; where he inputted that no damage was found. Deferred item 4 cut in seal on cargo door and he responded with no damage found and closed the logbook deferral sheet and released the aircraft.I cannot speak for [the crew chief] as to why he decided to overturn my findings and input no damages and/or corrosion found. In my opinion this is not a professional practice to partake in and should be of a concern.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Maintenance Technician reported that two aircraft discrepancy were overturned by the maintenance supervisor.

Narrative: I found heavy corrosion on the avionics air inlet butterfly check valve and entered the discrepancy into the logbook and the Deferral List (Deferred Item 1). Coworker called Maintenance Control for a possible MEL deferral and was advised by the tech that a deferral did not exist and the valve would have to be replaced. We then finished out the rest of our assigned paperwork for the aircraft then passed on the logbook and paperwork as well as the information about the check valve onto crew chief for him to take appropriate actions. The next day I looked up the Deferred Item 1 in the Deferral List to see what maintenance actions were performed and saw that [crew chief] closed the discrepancy as 'UPON FURTHER INSPECTION; EXHAUST DUST WAS PRESENT. NO EVIDENCE OF CORROSION. OPS CHECK: GOOD. OK FOR SERVICE' and released the aircraft for service. No repair or corrective action was performed. The valve has severe intergranular corrosion.I then researched my other findings Deferred Item 2 dents on leading edge of right horizontal stabilizer and Deferred Item 3 damage to cutout panel in aft cargo; where he inputted that no damage was found. Deferred Item 4 cut in seal on cargo door and he responded with no damage found and closed the Logbook Deferral Sheet and released the aircraft.I cannot speak for [the crew chief] as to why he decided to overturn my findings and input no damages and/or corrosion found. In my opinion this is not a professional practice to partake in and should be of a concern.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.